?
Lv 7
? asked in PetsDogs · 10 years ago

*Owning* your animals or forced to be a *Guardian*?

I don't know about other countries, but the United States of America is succumbing to AR (Animal Rights) Groups to CHANGE how we as owners animals (considered property) will be forced to become *guardians*.

How is this going to affect US and the dog(s)/cat(s) and/or other animals we care for?

I am going to quote from different articles I have found concerning this travesty. (The websites will be added for further reading)

State Legislative Resources:

~Some animal owners may like to refer to themselves as *pet guardians*, however, *guardian* is a legal term that has significant legal implications and repercussions. Under well-developed principles of guardianship law, guardianship a a fiduciary relationship (the highest legal civil duty owed by one to another)

The ward's interest are always to prevail over those of the guardian. Some conflicts that arise from application of human guardianship law to animals are describe in the text that follows.

On the basis of these conflicts the AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AVMA) RECOMMENDS THAT *GUARDIAN* NOT BE ADOPTED, EVEN TO SEMANTICALLY DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND THEIR ANIMALS.

~1) Reductions in rights of owners and imposition of additional legal obligations--With respect to veterinarian care, animals owners will have less authority and few treatment options. Required treatment may exceed the financial capacity of the owner to pay, yet guardianship will require that owners accept such financial burdens. Financial inability to provide treatment could easily result in increased animal abandonment.

~2) Entailment of wards

~3) Inability to select procedures such as euthanasia or spay/neuter

~4) Confidentiality of veterinary information and control of medical records

~5) Ability to transfer an animal to another party

~6) Coverage of animal-related claims by homeowners' insurance

~7) Required registration as guardian

~8) Annual guardianship reports

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/ownershi... (for further explanations)

Dog Owners Guide: *Dogs and the law* :~ When emotion enters the door, good sense often flies out the window.~

A new type of law is popping up in many cities. Based on state desire by some groups to eliminate pet ownership, it replaces property rights in animals with *guardianship*, a concept that allows government authorities and appointed agents to confiscate dogs without compensation.

(This particular article contains other interesting subjects concerning breeding/nuisance laws etc. It is worth the time for reading at your convince)

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/laws1.html

Ownership vs Guardianship:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution limits the power of legislatures to regulate certain private property. Provides that no state shall deprive any person of property with due process of law...........(further reading)

Once the term "guardian or guardianship" replaces ther owner or ownership of our dogs, we loose our Constitutional rights. We will have no legal recourse under the law to protect our dogs from being confiscated based on the possible whim of another.

http://www.myspace.com/americandogbreeders/blog/23...

SLATE ~ Guarding the Guard Dogs? Are you a dog "owner"----or a dog "dog guardian"?

The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growing tendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets. Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs and cats as animals. They are family members, emotional support systems.........children with fur.....

Guardianship, a word always applied to human beings, implies equality......

The things he (the dog) want to do----have sex, roll in gross stuff, roam freely, squabble with other dogs, chew shoes, pee every other tree----are illegal or frowned upon. His challenge is not to become a free and equal person but to learn how to live in the alien world of people.

Guardianship suggests dogs have a right to live their own lives as they wish......

THIS article is very well written, easy to read, short & I highly recommend reading it.

http://www.slate.com/

Sorry it is so long. Take your time. Give me your opinion. Short or long. This question is going to stay up for awhile. Thank you.

Update 2:

The Guardian Movement had a birthday not too long ago, but hardly anyone noticed.

The brainchild of Dr. Elliot Katz, founder and president of the animal welfare organization In Defense of Animals, the Guardian Movement was inaugurated with a laudable goal, advancing animal welfare by changing the public perception of the relationship between animals and their owners. The idea involved a fundamental alteration in the language of state laws and local ordinances.

Animals are considered the personal property of their owners in every state, much like a refrigerator or a stereo or an automobile. The analogy is not perfect, though, because welfare and protection laws give animals a special status not afforded inanimate personal property. Although some states have stronger animal protection laws than others, every jurisdiction recognizes that animals’ owners have special obligations to provide basic care. Abuse of an animal is prosecuted as a crime, often a misdemeanor that carries a light

Update 3:

The Guardian Movement had a birthday not too long ago, but hardly anyone noticed.

The brainchild of Dr. Elliot Katz, founder and president of the animal welfare organization In Defense of Animals, the Guardian Movement was inaugurated with a laudable goal, advancing animal welfare by changing the public perception of the relationship between animals and their owners. The idea involved a fundamental alteration in the language of state laws and local ordinances.

Animals are considered the personal property of their owners in every state, much like a refrigerator or a stereo or an automobile. The analogy is not perfect, though, because welfare and protection laws give animals a special status not afforded inanimate personal property. Although some states have stronger animal protection laws than others, every jurisdiction recognizes that animals’ owners have special obligations to provide basic care. Abuse of an animal is prosecuted as a crime, often a misdemeanor that carries a light

Update 4:

Sorry about the repeat. If you would like to continue reading the link go to:

http://www.dogdaddy.org/index.php?option=com_conte...

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am NOT my dogs "guardian", I am it's owner. Yes, pets are considered property, my dogs, my property. I make the choices on s/n, what vaccines I choose to give, what medical procedures I choose to do if my dog is sick. I can even choose not to medically treat a very sick or elderly dog and choose to euthanize or keep it as pain free as possible. My dog, my choice.

    Now, once that word owner becomes "Guardian", you no longer make choices for your dog, you are no longer the owner. If someone else decides they don't like they way your caring for your animal, it can be taken away from you. You could be in court over this. Let's face it, the AR's don't want us to own pets anyway, so this is just another way to end pet ownership.

    I handle the anti-dog legislation for my obedience club. At monthly meetings or thru our group email, I keep them up to date on what bills are being pushed in our state or nationally, I urge letter writting campaigns and have written many a letter myself and have in fact, spoke to my local councilman, assemblyman.

    Recently, my local councilman agreed on raising the NY licensing fee from $11.50 to $34.50 for intact animals. This topic was never brought to the public and was just pushed thru. I went into his office with a study from the NYC Dept of Health & Mental Services that showed that 80% of all NYC dogs were NOT licensed. I asked him if he thought raising the fee would encourage owners to license their dog. We get no services from our local shelter. Our shelter does not check for microchips, does not notify you if they've found your animal and will adopt it or put it down before you even get a chance to find it..so what I want to know is what is my $34.50 going for? Needless to say, he said he'd get back to me and never did. Before I walked out of his office I reminded him that "I am a Pet Owner and I vote".

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Now I have been a long time owner of cats and I recently got a puppy. I have a 20 year old cat whom I love very dearly. But I'm still her owner, not her guardian. Guardian laws are for CHILDREN not ANIMALS. Perhaps the laws around dogs and cats should be changed directly. 10 feet leash only? Why not make that 20 feet? A dog or cat cannot think for itself so guardian laws will not be helpful to this cause.

    This idea is ridiculous and these people will just use the guardian laws to take your pet away from you.

  • 10 years ago

    Since I cannot foresee a time when there will exist the political impetus necessary to amend the legal status of a human as “owner” to “guardian” of canines, it does not unduly perturb me.

    Guardianship in terms of the human adult/child relationship which has no connotation of ownership applied to property, all be it property that is distinct in law because you can be convicted of animal but never toaster abuse, is absurd.

    Do the powers that be really think a dog's psyche will be damaged if it’s referred to as property?

    Hardly, because as any rational person knows a dog is not capable of the level of complex reasoning that would allow it to understand what ownership means & feel less worthy because of it.

    Dogs have no need of such ludicrous claptrap as it would not benefit them one iota.

    “Guardian” could be no more than a word come into use in common parlance if it was not give a legal definition as it pertains to dog ownership. Reaching a consensus on what the word should mean would be a task in itself, & then the Government would have to make financial provision to enforce it; otherwise it would a law that would sit on the statute book largely unused.

    I OWN my dogs & I neither want nor do my dogs need the legal situation to change.

  • 10 years ago

    So if I'm my dog's guardian and my fiance and I break up, does that mean if I get custody of my dog I can make him pay doggy support?

    Where will the line be drawn?

    Are dogs going to be fitted with emergency response buttons to call the police and notify them that their guardian is being mean?

    Am I going to be able to add my dog to my benefits plan at work since I will be his guardian and have my company pay for his teeth cleanings, vet appointments, etc.?

    It is completely unhealthy to think of your ANIMAL as a CHILD.

    I don't understand what this world is coming to...

    I mean think about it. If you let the law recognize an animal owner as a "guardian" that implies that there will be laws as to how to care, manage, etc. your animal.

    Why are people okay with having the government tell you how to own an animal? You think banning dock/cropping or banning breeds is bad? Wait until they view you as a "guardian".

    I bet my prong collar will land me a one-way ticket to jail for abusing my "fur baby".

    I'm also willing to bet certain vaccinations, neutering, vet check-ups, etc. will be made mandatory.

    Licensing fees will change...

    Just pathetic.

    I am an OWNER. I PAID for my dog, I DID NOT GIVE BIRTH TO IT!

    Source(s): I hope I'm making since...I became enraged and just started spewing lol.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Delusion, plain and simple, along with the desire of people to make dogs something they are not have killed and will continue to kill dog ownership til in about 30 years time, there will be no dogs left.

    When you are emotional towards your ANIMAL and you are willing to tell me that YOU gave birth to it, there is a problem. When you are willing to call it your fur baby, there is a problem, when you are unable to look at a dog with cold, clear, hard OPEN eyes, the AR people will come in and create their own lexicon which you will use because it makes YOU, not the dog, feel so much better.

    When you see the need for martyrdom in here daily, and you know its going on everywhere, you are not surprised when you see articles like the ones you mentioned.

    Dogs are ANIMALS, property or HUMANS to do with as we please. It is up to us as humans to know and determine what is good for these animals and act accordingly.

    I dont house dogs, I OWN dogs, always have. My dogs are animals that get treated as such, they get fed and watered and trained and work for a living. Our arrangements are clear cut and my dogs live in a black and white world that suits them just fine.

    This situation you are asking about will not change for the better, the people involved in this are like sheep being led to the slaughter house. So be it, its not my place to save them or their animals, I will most likely not be around in 30 years when the only place you can see a dog is in a movie.

    Source(s): Realist
  • I understand the implications of this and it doesn't seem to me to be the answer. As far as ownership goes I still think it should be changed. I don't know about the US but here in Canada you own a dog and by that definition you can do what you want with the dog. Under the law the only things you have to provide are shelter off the ground, food, water and a chain no shorter than 10 feet. You are not obligated to provide the dog medical care, or toys, or interaction.. you are not obligated to protect the dog from biting insects or wild animals or anything.. I've seen suffering because of this, suffering that under the law is perfectly legal. I've seen dogs chained up their whole lives, with fur matted, and ears encrusted with blood from biting horse flies, mosquitoes, blackflies, deer flies.. I've seen dogs so neurotic they've worn a rut in the ground at the edge of their chain.. and it's all legal, because they are property.

    I think we need a new definition under the law, that takes into account a dogs dependency upon us as well as their inability to decide for themselves. Guardianship does not take this into account and is more designed for people who can make their own decisions and so must be protected from having others make decisions for them contrary to their best interest.

    With dogs, they can't make decisions for themselves.. we have to, and I don't think guardianship is the answer. I think we should have a new definition.. a Companion animal act. My pets are not my property, nor am I their guardian.. They are my companions, and we belong to each other only by virtue of the bonds we have between us. I have a responsibility to care for them and provide for them.

    If we could change the definition and tailor it specifically to the needs of both humans and animals then we would get somewhere.. it's just not practical to place dogs under a definition of guardianship which is tailored to humans. We have to have the right to make informed decisions regarding our pets health and well-being, and we have to have laws to protect them from neglect and abuse. If they were defined not as property but as dependent companions.. that would make sense. It would be better to have an act like.. Companion animal responsibility act or Dependent animal act.. something that protects them from legalized neglect, and protects us the caretakers and our rights to make informed decisions on their behalf.

    The answer isn't to give animals rights, they cannot act upon those rights and they can neither be informed nor make decisions concerning their own well-being. What we need to do is put those rights in the hands of the people responsible for them while at the same time putting laws into place to protect animals from being exploited, neglected and abused by those responsible for them.

  • 10 years ago

    I couldn't find two of the articles you referenced, but where is this going on?

    I haven't heard anything about people being called "guardians" other than PETA, and most people know they are off the deep end.

    Dogs that are not properly cared for can already be confiscated under current law.

    ****

    Huh...you can "adopt" terminology. Who knew? :o)

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    I don't believe in animals being "property" and I'm definitely for animal rights, but even I can see this is going way too far. I don't think animals will benefit from something like this. Instead of putting effort into something that in the long run, will be worse for animals, why aren't those people focusing on tougher sentences for animal abusers? I'm happy to be Australian right now.

  • anne b
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    So which states would that be that you are concerned about?

    I am not concerned at all. We can't even get our state to eliminate gassing shelters, so why would they ever pass something so silly? They couldn't care less.

    And I would be very skeptical of anyone saying any other state in this country is that close to considering this either. (except maybe California, where all the insane stuff in this country seems to originate from).

    Mountain out of a molehill, huh?

    Source(s): Not concerned at all. Will never happen.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The INMATES are running the asylum,aren't they?

    You have noticed the GLARING symptom here several times an hour..."I wanna ADOPT a..." "Where can I RESCUE..."

    DELIBERATE propaganda BY the humaniacs to STEAL OUR RIGHTS TO ****OWN**** our livestock.

    & all the poor deluded boobs lapping up that obvious lie & SCREAMING when the sane intelligent ADULTS dare to point it out to them! The "Big Lie" has been & always will be a tool used by tyrants to sway the ignorant masses. Just ask Stalin,Hitler,Pol Pot....every dictator in history...& CURRENTLY.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.